Review: ‘Mad Men’ same as it ever was in season 6

Midway through the “Mad Men” sixth season premiere (Sunday at 9 p.m. on AMC), Don Draper and Pete Campbell have a conversation that is not only like every conversation they’ve ever had, but about every conversation they’ve ever had, and how they are all the same. The show has been on for so long that everyone – Don, Pete, “Mad Men” creator Matt Weiner, the viewers at home – knows exactly how it works.

On many an aging series, that level of familiarity might become a problem. Even a classic series like Weiner’s previous show, “The Sopranos,” struggled at time with formula in its later seasons, to the point where the actors (who were often just as in the dark as their audience) would start guessing which one of their new co-stars would turn out to be, as James Gandolfini once put it, “the new Richie Aprile: the guy we yell at for nine months.”

But the familiarity of “Mad Men” at this point only enhances the experience, because it’s always been a show driven more by character and theme than by plot. What’s going to happen next is never remotely as important as how and why it happens, which is why I’ve always felt that Weiner’s handwringing over spoilers does a disservice to his own creation. There are at times surprises – Don’s true identity, Peggy’s baby – but the most interesting aspects of them are rarely the surprises themselves, but what they tell us about these people. Lane Pryce’s suicide last season, for instance, would have been considered a shock before the season began, but by the time we got there, we’d witnessed the disintegration of this lonely man’s life to the point where it would have been surprising if he hadn’t hanged himself in the office.

Instead, “Mad Men” focuses on change, sometimes big (the rise of the counterculture, or how far Peggy’s career has come), sometimes smaller (Harry Crane turning out to be a lazy pig), and sometimes unsuccessful (Don’s attempt last year to throw himself into a happy, monogamous marriage to Megan). Don and Pete may say roughly the same words to each other over and over again, but they’re not the same men each time, which makes the same conversation feel very different.

The premiere, called “The Doorway” is another two-hour affair checking in on the emotional state of Don Draper, but it doesn’t feel in any way like a rehash of last season’s “A Little Kiss.” And as the series gets closer to its ending (barring something unexpected, next season will be the last), it’s become ever more aware of how much the times, and the characters, have changed – and how hard it is in those who don’t want to change.

Without giving away the exact date (last season ended in April of 1967), we’re now deep enough into the ’60s that when Don has a meeting with the twentysomething writers and artists on his team, they appear to be from different species. They work in the same office, doing the same work, but they have nothing else in common. It”s not just the clothes and hair that have transformed, but entire states of mind.

(“Mad Men” has always distinguished itself from most ’60s period pieces by taking the side of the straights. When we see beatniks or hippies, it”s almost always from the perspective of an establishment character like Don or Peggy or Betty.)

When we see Peggy, it”s clear she”s absorbed an awful lot from Don; other than context and Elisabeth Moss”s usual great performance, there”s virtually no resemblance between this Peggy and Don”s mousey secretary from season 1.

Again and again throughout the premiere, we see characters who have adapted to the changing times, and their own changed circumstances, and others who are trying to carry on as they always have, even as that position becomes less and less tenable with each passing year.

One of the show”s most entrenched – and funniest, thanks to the way John Slattery delivers every brilliant one-liner he”s given – characters is Roger Sterling, who at one point in the premiere tries to suggest that change is pointless. He compares the journey of life to going through doorways that are supposed to take you to new places, but inevitably leave you exactly where you were before.

Given what we”ve seen of Roger over the previous five seasons, it”s not surprising he would feel this way. But the world around him is changing, as are many of the people. The show that portrays them, on the other hand, both has and hasn”t changed. It”s arguably a richer, deeper, more experimental work than it was at the start, and it”s been willing to transform its characters with the time. (And the performances by people like Moss, Slattery, Jon Hamm, Vincent Kartheiser and others have only gotten better the more we and they have grown to understand these people.)

But it is, fundamentally, still “Mad Men” – which means it continues to be one of the most satisfying dramas in the history of the medium. It”s great to have it back.

Join The Discussion: Log In With

I have to think writing a review like this—free of specifics—must be really hard. Well done. Can’t wait to see it.

By: SomeGuy

04.02.2013 @ 1:35 PM

Love this show. Probably the best writing on TV for the past few years.

My only worry with shows like this is: “how long can they sustain this quality?” I wouldn’t mind if the next season was the last one, because eventually they all go down in quality

By: daisy

04.04.2013 @ 11:02 PM

The next season is the last one.

By: DefRef

04.02.2013 @ 2:15 PM

The actor that’s always blown my mind on this show has been Vincent Kartheiser. I didn’t watch Mad Men until I picked up the first couple of seasons on Blu-ray – I think Season 5 was the first I watched as it aired, not on BD/DVD – but whenever I saw articles I was always taken aback that the lousy sullen punk who played Connor on Angel was on this critically acclaimed show. He was TERRIBLE playing a contemporary teenager – we’re talking sub-Pretty Little Liars grade acting – so to see him handle the period mannerisms is stunning.

If you go back and watch Jennifer Lawrence’s work as a teenager on the Bill Engvel show or when she was the murder victim of the week on an episode of Medium, you can see the outlines of her career-making roles in Winter’s Bone, etc. but nothing in Kartheiser’s Angel work indicates future quality.

By: wingster55

04.02.2013 @ 2:19 PM

I would really have to disagree. Kartheiser was fantastic in ‘Angel’

By: sedeyus

04.02.2013 @ 3:51 PM

He wasn’t playing a contemporary teenager. He was playing a teenager raised in a hell dimension by an nineteenth-century vampire hunter. I thought he was fine at that.

By: DefRef

04.02.2013 @ 4:59 PM

Naw, he was just sullen and mopey.

By: sdhb

04.04.2013 @ 2:11 AM

I really enjoyed Jennifer Lawrence on The Bill Engvall show. I’ve been re-watching her performance on youtube with my kids recently (since they are Hunger Games fans)

By: Viscount monteforte

04.05.2013 @ 1:07 AM

“A thing like that.” The way Pete Campbell talks is anything but contemporary. Have to agree he’s excellent as a period actor. I’ve never seen Angel…or anything else he’s ever been in so it’s hard for me to imagine him any other way.

By: Jayne

04.08.2013 @ 1:51 AM

sideburn extensions??

By: marc

04.02.2013 @ 2:35 PM

Glad to her that, Alan. Looking forward to these 13 episodes like nothing else. At this point it’s easy to take Mad Men for granted, I don’t. Wat an amazing show.

By: JP

04.02.2013 @ 2:59 PM

I like that Slattery is given that “doorway” metaphor since he was in the Adjustment Bureau which featured that very notion.

By: John

04.02.2013 @ 3:34 PM

I would argue that Hamm was at his best in season three.

By: BrettPoker

04.02.2013 @ 3:48 PM

Hopefully this season is better than last season. Just about everything that involved Don’s new wife was slumber inducing.

By: John

04.02.2013 @ 4:07 PM

I still maintain that season four was the show at its lowest. It felt aimless and cliche, and the final few episodes of the season were fairly crappy. Season five wasn’t on the level of the first couple of years, but at least Don became somewhat interesting again, there was legitimate focus and other characters had nice arc.

By: sauloccl

04.02.2013 @ 5:54 PM

The only complain I have about the show is the number of scenes with Ken. After “Signal 30” (by far the best episode of the last season, in my opinion), I hope we’ll see a lot more of him and his wife (whose name is Cynthia, by the way) this year.

By: madmeme

04.03.2013 @ 9:44 AM

Maintain all you want – but you’re wrong.

By: Shawn

04.02.2013 @ 3:51 PM

I hope Mad Men does not recycle character arcs just to keep the doom and gloom going. Pete Campbell was a prime example of re-visiting a well they had already been down, just so that they could ring more drama out of his character.

At the end of season 4 his character had a nice linear progression, he went from being a sleezbag in season 1 (who thought that he a promotion he did not and cheated on his wife a ton) to a genuinely ok character at the end of season 4 (where he deserved his status at work and enjoyed his life with Trudy). Come season 5 and they threw all that out of the window….

I hope they can keep focus a little better.

By: MorganEdge

04.02.2013 @ 4:22 PM

It always cracks me up when Alan’s thoughtful articles on intelligent dramas is followed up by links to “Hollywood’s Hottest Racks”.

By: BDUB

04.03.2013 @ 4:06 PM

This made me laugh. Always cracks me up too.

By: Drod

04.02.2013 @ 4:26 PM

I dunno, I feel like the characters in Mad Men and the show itself has changed a lot more than say the Sopranos ever did, I am not sure Mad Men is as committed to the idea that people just don’t change.
Also why is the reader’s rating F? lol.

By: Sara

04.02.2013 @ 4:29 PM

The problem I have with Mad Men is pretty much exemplified in the title: “same as it ever was.” I don’t deny that this show has superior writing, acting, and directing. It is a fine show and very well-made.

Unfortunately, I’ve felt, especially in S5, that this show has become stagnant, in particular Don. For as much as the other characters have evolved–Peggy, Pete, Joan, even Betty to an extent–he remains frustratingly stalled. Maybe that’s the point, but I’ve grown rather tired of him, especially the ways in which he treats his relationships at home and at work. Unlike many, I really enjoyed Megan because she seemed to put Don in his place and wasn’t the same as the women he’d been with in the past (that is, they seemed to be on the same level intellectually, and their relationship seemed reciprocal). Add to that my feelings that Don is just not very likable — he’s a misogynist jerk. At this point I’m rooting for Peggy to rise in the ranks and overtake everyone at SCDP just to put them all in their place.

Some others here also seem to think that the show is in danger of double-dipping in terms of character arcs and themes. How many times must we be shown that Pete is a miserable human being, or that, despite doing everything “right”, Betty is as unhappy as ever?

By: madmeme

04.03.2013 @ 1:58 PM

Sara – I’m not sure if you realize it, but you contradicted yourself a bit.

You mention Pete and Betty evolving, then later complain that the show keeps portraying the same aspects of their characters over and over.

You also mention Don as having not evolved; of being stalled – then go on to describe a way in which he’s evolved: vis-à-vis his marriage/partnership with Megan.

But I think the general point that Weiner has been making (about change/evolution) is that we CAN change ourselves – a certain amount – but we will always carry our baggage with us. A part of Pete will always be the angry kid whose father didn’t show him affection – a part of Don will always be the scared boy who grew up without a mother. These things are immutable – and occasionally they rear their heads in unexpected ways in the present. This is just part and parcel of the human condition – as is getting what you ‘wanted’ and still being miserable.

By: Dan

04.02.2013 @ 5:05 PM

Good review. But I think Weiner is being a little crazy with the spoilers. How is the month and year a spoiler? It’s ridiculous. I say this as someone who has watched Mad Men for a long time and actively tried to avoid the year before the last season came out. The start year does not matter at all.

By: Eiganvalue

04.02.2013 @ 5:18 PM

Spoilers – My thoughts are that everyone on the net that writes about television would love to have the spoilers out there for their columns to make some eyeball income. But it also makes the reviewer lazy. As we have seen over the years from Alan, that a good reviewer just doesn’t rehash plot points. Weiner is just going with a no tolerance type rule about spoilers so that there is no grey area.

I see this season as an interesting choice as to what to do with Joan. She does not have the obvious path that Peggy has by being an all in modern woman. Joan has a baby to consider. She is not jumping into the drug culture of the 60’s or even the fashion culture. Yet, she is now Lane’s replacement. A partner. A manager. How can she keep the 1960’s style and be a 1970’s feminist too?

Hopefully this show does not run past next season or we could get episodes where Don meets Elizabeth from The Americans during one of her early missions.

Also, what is with all of the Mad Men hate? A D- rating? Must be all of those poor NBC execs with nothing to do.

By: Sara

04.02.2013 @ 5:25 PM

I think the real question with Joan is how does the way in which she procured the partner position affect the way she is treated in the office? Will it matter? Will Pete, Roger, & Co. treat her differently because of it?

As much as Joan has remained fixed to traditional roles re: women at home and in the workplace, she is in great uncharted territory at this point: single mother and high up in the workplace.

By: S. Tarzan

04.02.2013 @ 6:04 PM

I’m really interested to see where Joan goes from here too. I don’t know that she’s terribly wedded to traditional gender roles (she was very supportive when Peggy moved in with Abe, for ex.), but she’s in a position that she never anticipated, both as a single mother and as a partner in the firm. How does she adapt?

By: DB Cooper

04.02.2013 @ 5:29 PM

Mattingly, shave those sideburns!

By: sauloccl

04.02.2013 @ 5:31 PM

Madness again: how can people rate it D-? Six days before watching the episode, you guys already hate it?

By: night musing

04.03.2013 @ 5:34 AM

People are crazy.

It’s now up to D+… and the episode still hasn’t aired. I just voted A+, on the basis that I am rating the review, not the episode. But still.

By: madmeme

04.03.2013 @ 9:41 AM

People are childish. They’re using the grade to reflect their displeasure that Mad Men gets so much attention, or that they don’t like M. Weiner, or perhaps just the monotony of their lives.

By: Art Vandelay

04.04.2013 @ 2:40 PM

Trolls be trollin’….

By: madmeme

04.04.2013 @ 2:45 PM

I posted below that my current thinking is that the low grade is from GOT fans who are pissed Alan ranked this premiere higher than Game of Thrones.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 5:36 PM

i have never seen so many critics drool over a show that less than 5% of the country actually watches. how about a rule that more than 5m viewers need to watch something before you talk about it every single week?

By: dan

04.02.2013 @ 6:05 PM

“Opinions and interest become valid at 5 million.” Check! Seems arbitrary and snobby in its counter-snobbery, but I’ll run it up the flagpole!

-Daniel

By: S. Tarzan

04.02.2013 @ 6:11 PM

My understanding is that Mad Men’s weekly audience is around 7 million once you add in later airings plus DVR & On Demand numbers. Or are critics only allowed to drool based on the traditional Nielsen ratings?

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 6:18 PM

My point was they should talk about shows that many people either have seen or don’t know about. Even if we say 10m are watching, that is less than 5% of America. Everyone knows about Mad Men and 95% of America has gone, ‘Eh, not interested’. There are other great things that no one is watching, how about talking about them once in a while. My fault, I thought you wanted readers to read your writing and discover new things. Very clever only writing about shows very few people watch so you don’t have to worry about finding new fans. Just keep talking to the same 5m people every week.

By: MarioD

04.02.2013 @ 6:28 PM

As one of the five million people who Alan is apparently directing his writing to: Thank You. It sure seems the other 4,999,999 people and I are enough for you folks to make a fair wage, so I encourage you to continue pandering to us and we’ll all continue reading.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 6:36 PM

5% of America and on to the future. There are no flaws in that business model at all.

By: jwalterweatherman

04.02.2013 @ 6:47 PM

What exactly is your point? Do you really think that this website (and others) would continue to write about Mad Men if it wasn’t drawing enough readers/advertisers to sustain their business model?

By: sauloccl

04.02.2013 @ 6:58 PM

Television critics are the group of people who study, research, analyze and form opinions about the content of the productions, without being influenced by public opinion, thus valuing the object of study / work. It’s not like other media vehicles that are intended only to promote the production and encourage the public to watch whatever it is, valuing the entertainment more than the content that is displayed. Unlike the critics who study the content, media studies the public. By analyzing the interests of the public, they seek to serve them with stories about the productions that most people prefer, thus ensuring a good reception.
Despite all the praise he gets for what he writes, “What’s Alan Watching?” is not intended to please you by writing about “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” or whatever crap TV show that you and other 5 million people watch every week, my friend.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 7:09 PM

I thought as a TV critic his job is to review new shows and tell his reading audience about what is coming up on television not to just play with himself. I have no problem with the occasional article about Mad Men or Breaking Bad or Girls or any other show that he watches but every week you can count on: ‘AMC’s sunday review (BB, MM or WD), how good Justified is, another joke about Smash (another show no one watched). I just wish he would mix it up and talk about other shows too.
Like how about a blog about “Happy Endings” and how it is getting cancelled b/c it keep moving times. That is another show that not many watch but getting publicity could actually help save it instead of just talking about a show everyone knows already. I enjoy almost all of his writings; i just want more diversity (which of course is an old, old wooden ship used during the civil war) of topics/shows. :)

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 7:13 PM

this seems to be my biggest problem – I read Alan to find out what is on television. he doesn’t really do that anymore. he has become a scribe talking about the same shows that he likes. but that is my problem not his.

By: Jj

04.02.2013 @ 7:16 PM

I think the animosity sometimes comes from the fact that Matt Weiner comes off as a douche. The way he tells fans to go f*** themselves or eat bacon and kill themselves or how this is his story and show and they should get their own and stop bothering him.

Well, way back when theatre was just people travelling around the country trying to entertain people and make them happy…it was an audience thing. Tv is an audience thing, since you need viewers to sell ads to, so Matt Weiner telling fans that it is his show is insulting and pretentious to say the least. It is not his show, it is also AMC and Liongates, also they need fans, he needs fans otherwise….you got it, no show!

Secondly, if anyone who has watched Archer, specifically Live and Let Dine….Wiener comes across like Bourdan….telling ISIS that his restaurant is not for Joe Six Pack and how he has no respect for anyone but the hoy ploy and is just an abusive ass….

It is no wonder a lot of people who are “those” people do not rate Mad Men or Weiner himself…he should show some dignity and class and perhaps a hint of humility and stop being a giant ass.

Ugh…

By: CaseyP

04.02.2013 @ 7:22 PM

you must really hate when he reviews Bunheads then, eh?

By: colby

04.02.2013 @ 7:43 PM

Is it really such a crime that Alan posts about something that only has a niche audience*? That’s still 5 million people who might want to read more about the show and talk about it, they oughtta get a chance to do. It’s not like we’re running out of internet.

*- And is the audience so niche when you factor in DVDs/Netflix? And- does it matter, when you consider that every other television creator has obviously been watching the show, and taking copious notes? The influence of the show is huge, and reducing it to simply a ratings figure distorts what’s really going on.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 7:52 PM

It is no crime at all. I know it doesn’t sound like but I like Alan and want more people to read him. Talking about the same shows each week is not a way to increase readership IMO. That is my point. I was beyond obsessed with “LOST” but I knew that I couldn’t talk about it all the time. Most people don’t care and tune you out. Same as “Mad Men except twice as many people watched “LOST”.

By: Ben Kabak

04.02.2013 @ 7:54 PM

Enjoy watching American Idol, NCIS and Big Bang. Leave the Mad men and Breaking Bad to the adults, son.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 7:57 PM

@ Colby. yes they audience is still VERY VERY small even considering DVR / Netflix. Most estimates are about 3-5m live, another 2-3m on DVR. Not anywhere close to even 5% of America (300m). I would argue that it doesn’t have culture significance since most of America doesn’t watch it. I can argue that Honey Boo Boo has more influence than Man Men.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 8:01 PM

@ Ben. i have never watched any of those shows. Are they good? I wouldn’t know since Alan never writes about them :)

By: colby

04.02.2013 @ 8:22 PM

“I know it doesn’t sound like but I like Alan and want more people to read him. Talking about the same shows each week is not a way to increase readership IMO.”

And 100 million viewers only equals one third of America, but man, that Super Bowl still does okay. The TV business isn’t measured in Percent of the Whole Population.

“I would argue that it doesn’t have culture significance since most of America doesn’t watch it. I can argue that Honey Boo Boo has more influence than Man Men.”

I can, too, but I’d look really stupid doing it. pick a night of scripted TV anywhere on the dial and you’re gonna be awash in direct mad Men influences, from parodies and homages to thematic resonance to outright knockoffs. It’s like a Velvet Underground thing, maybe only 100 people bought the record, but they all went out and formed a band. That’s still worth covering.

Anyway, it sounds like your problem is the fundamental format Alan has chosen to write in. You sound like you’d rather he cover more shows with less detail. That’s fine (David Simon doesn’t like Alan’s format, either), but it’s just not the medium he’s working in. That’s kinda like arguing McDonald’s should serve more pizza. There’s nothing wrong with pizza, but McDonald’s doesn’t need to be the one to give it to you. There’s plenty of TV journalism out there, see if someone else covers the industry that way. If not? Hell with it, start your own blog.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 8:40 PM

@ Colby. Thanks for the serious discussion. I agree with almost everything you said expect the influence part. Just like Mad Men has gotten shows to copy them but Honey Boo Boo probably isn’t the origin but the wave of ignorant-based TV is more substantial IMO that Man Men (gator hunters, pawn shop shows, repo shows, duggars, etc) but is never talked about here.
My problem is I feel like Alan is writing about fewer shows than when I started reading him. But he probably writes the same numbers, it just feels like less since I don’t watch them with him anymore. But you are right, it is unfair to expect him to write for me alone; I probably should just read other people but I tend to agree with Alan’s take usually so keep coming back.
As for the Super Bowl, yes, ‘only’ 100m watch but it is by far the most watched show at the time it airs. Has MM or BB won even one week of ratings since they started let alone every week? And no I am not saying it has to be popular to write about but this ‘review’ was nothing. It was just another reason to write about MM. He could have just waited for Sunday and wrote a real review about a different show.

By: colby

04.02.2013 @ 8:50 PM

“the wave of ignorant-based TV is more substantial IMO that Man Men”

Hard to judge; I think there’s probably more Reality Shows like that on TV than scripted shows (when you factor in all the cable channels), but at the same time, it’s kind of apples and oranges to compare scripted shows to reality shows.

“As for the Super Bowl, yes, ‘only’ 100m watch but it is by far the most watched show at the time it airs.”

That’s actually exactly my point. The Super Bowl is THE gold standard of television ratings, but when you put its viewers in terms of a percentage of the whole, it doesn’t look that impressive. But that’s INCREDIBLY misleading; TV ratings simply aren’t measured that way, and never have been. And it’s the same way with Mad Men’s 7 million viewers, or whatever. Its one of those facts that distorts more than it illuminates.

“this ‘review’ was nothing. It was just another reason to write about MM.”

That’s a fair criticism- but I would suggest that it’s a different one than you were initially making. Perhaps your problem isn’t with covering Mad Men writ large, but rather with how this particular coverage was done.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 9:08 PM

@ Colby.
Re: Super Bowl. Yes, the raw viewership is misleading. But what is not misleading is that over 50% of Americans watching TV are watching the super bowl. At 900p on Sundays, there are more people watching ABC, CBS and even NBC that watch ‘MM’ but all of those channels get 1/10th the coverage MM gets. Now the 7m that watch MM are the gold standard for advertisers so it can cover the costs and they don’t need more viewers, but lets not pretend that everyone is watching; it remains a very niche show.

Re: BB/MM vs Redneck TV. It is apples and oranges for sure. But would you agree that “Chelsea” has more in common with ‘Jersey Shore’ than ‘MM’. I would argue that have way more ‘apples’ on TV now but Alan only writes about ‘oranges’. And the same 5 ‘oranges’ every time? How about an ‘apple’ recipe every once in a while? Even if just talking about how horrible the ‘apples’ are, which they mostly are.

By: colby

04.02.2013 @ 9:20 PM

“but all of those channels get 1/10th the coverage MM gets”

Are you sure? I just glanced through the first five pages, and I could 3 MM posts versus 11 posts about network television.

“but lets not pretend that everyone is watching”

We’re not.

“I would argue that have way more ‘apples’ on TV now but Alan only writes about ‘oranges’.”

And again, I fail to see the problem in that. Alan has chosen to write in the format of dissecting scripted television. He’s covered reality TV before, and will do so again, but it’s not what his sight is about, and I don’t know why it should be. If reality shows are so omnipresent and popular, surely someone else can fill the demand of covering them (though in general, there’s usually a lot less to analyze in those shows, and they generate weaker discussions). I mean, it’s not just plain not Alan’s job to review a representative sample of television shows.

By: Meh

04.02.2013 @ 9:21 PM

Wow, someone really threw a hissy fit, didn’t they?

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 9:30 PM

@Colby. You are right. Alan is free to write about anything. i am just re-arguing my point that he should write about more shows. 3 posts for one show and 11 about all other network shows is what I mean by too much coverage. how about 1 post about MM and then 2 others about different shows? especially since MM hasn’t premiered yet. Your point about the lack of topics to discuss about the ‘crap-TV’ is a very good one too. Alan is a writer first and probably enjoys the depth these shows offer.

By: colby

04.02.2013 @ 9:38 PM

“3 posts for one show and 11 about all other network shows is what I mean by too much coverage. how about 1 post about MM and then 2 others about different shows?”

Uh, isn’t that what he’s doing? In fact, I count >3 posts on network shows for each Mad Men post, right? And that, btw, doesn’t count posts on any other cable shows, BBC shows, general television news, the podcast, etc. It’s about 3/50 posts on MM for the last few weeks.

By: Jim

04.02.2013 @ 9:43 PM

And Haden, Alan frequently mentions about how a new show/s may be good/well made but either doesn’t interest him or lend itself to the type of reviews/columns he writes and then just checks in on them occasionaly through the year. He and Dan seem to watch almost any scripted show that they receive screeners. Usually you have to listen to the podcast for that info though.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 9:50 PM

I’m sorry I am taking cold medicine today so my reading comprehension might not be great. But you understand the difference between one cable TV show and ALL network shows? I will rephrase. Alan has written 3 blogs about MM in the last few weeks. Has any other show gotten 3 or more posts since those three? If he has, I was wrong and am sorry. But I feel like the answer is no. He writes about MM more than any other show now. That seems wrong since MM hasn’t even aired since last year. But as you point out, it is Alan’s blog. He can write about MM everyday if he wants.
To be fair, I am totally blaming Alan (unfairly) b/c it seems like this is the trend with all TV critics I read now. Fewer shows, but more depth. Plenty of talk about ‘MM’, ‘BB’, ‘Homeland’ and ‘Girls’ but now much else. I’m sure I just need to expand my reading. They have to be out there somewhere, right?

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 9:56 PM

@ Jim. I have seen him mention ‘X’ show is good but I won’t be reviewing it. Or ‘Y’ episode it great. I like those; he should do it more IMO. I think they would make a good blog post for him instead of just MM again. I don’t need 1000 words about it; how about just a sentence or two on the best 10 shows not being watched.

I have never listed to the podcast. Fire and Ice? Maybe i should check it out since it leads to multiple topics better.

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 10:08 PM

I also just noticed – his blog is called “What Alan is Watching”. Not “What Haden wants Alan to watch”. I am surprised no one threw that in my face. does anyone else recommend the podcast too?

By: colby

04.02.2013 @ 10:12 PM

“Has any other show gotten 3 or more posts since those three?”

Yeah, lots actually. GOT, Justified- even Veronica Mars! And of course, HIMYM, New Girl, Community, Cougar Town, etc. are all guaranteed posts every week they air.

By: colby

04.02.2013 @ 10:13 PM

I highly recommend the podcast, the spend some time talking about shows that can’t generate whole posts, and Dan watches some shows that Alan doesn’t.

I found out about Sepinwall at that site. It’s pretty clear that Mad Men is on his short list (along with Breaking Bad and Boardwalk Empire).

(whoops I just slayed my own joke – dog gone it!)

By: Haden

04.02.2013 @ 10:18 PM

@ colby. you are right. I was wrong. he does post about those each week too. However, I would add that those shows aired new episodes though (or raised money for a movie), which is why he wrote about them. MM hasn’t aired yet. Thanks for the info about the Podcast. I’ll check it out.

By: colby

04.02.2013 @ 10:33 PM

“However, I would add that those shows aired new episodes though (or raised money for a movie), which is why he wrote about them.”

Sorta, but this post here is essentially a “season preview”- and he did the same thing for GoT, Walking Dead, Justified- anything he got a good number of screeners for. I’ll say that I found posting the MM production stills to be a little sui generis, but then he basically was just posting pictures- and hey, they generated a lot of comments.

By: Alan Daniel

04.02.2013 @ 11:36 PM

@JJ

Archer is a great example, but what about when Frasier and Niles open their own restaurant and they try and make it EXCLUSIVE…then the dad basically said why don’t you just put gunman on the roof to stop people coming in, lol.

I think Weiner only makes this show for himself and to be honest he does not want anyone else to see it. I mean they way he refuses to agree with anyone’s interpretations of the material (especially critics) tells you he only wants to see what he wants to see.

The spoiler thing is basically him putting gunman on the roof outside a theatre…he does not want riff raff like us watching his work.

By: CaseyP

04.03.2013 @ 1:02 AM

remind me to never comment on this site again. my email has been getting blown up all day with each response after I commented. it didn’t used to be like this after commenting, although I’ll admit its been a while since I last left a comment. but yeah, I don’t think I’ll be commenting anymore on hitfix.

Alan, you rock. never change.

By: dan

04.03.2013 @ 1:17 AM

Casey P – I’m gonna make it worse very quickly: The “check” box underneath comments with the “Notify” link… Just uncheck it next time you comment and you won’t get any emails. That won’t help you with this particular comment thread, which happens to have generated an exceptionally large number of responses, unfortunately.

But we definitely don’t want you to feel like you can’t comment again here. So comment away! Just be sure to “uncheck” that box.

And sorry for THIS email.

-Daniel

By: CaseyP

04.03.2013 @ 5:49 AM

thanks for the feedback Dan, I won’t let it keep me from posting in the future. I’ll admit there was a bit of snark in my previous comment.

By: Ricardo

04.03.2013 @ 3:23 PM

Thats ridiculous. Since when do tv ratings translate to internet traffic?

And with that kinda mentality there wouldn’t be anything for niche audiences.

Just ridiculous.

By: madmeme

04.03.2013 @ 10:59 PM

@Haden – there are just so many incorrect assumptions in many of your statements that it would require an essay to rebut them all – but I have just one question for you. When you write:
“Everyone knows about Mad Men and 95% of America has gone, ‘Eh, not interested’.”
do you think that implies that 5% of us are deluding ourselves – or that 95% of us have a hard time recognizing quality content?

@Alan Daniel: “The spoiler thing is basically him putting gunman on the roof outside a theatre…he does not want riff raff like us watching his work.”

This has got to be one of the silliest things I’ve read recently. Personally, as a viewer, I like Weiner’s stringent anti-spoiler policies. As I wrote in another post below, I take great pleasure in approaching every episode without an inkling of whats to come. YMMV, but some of us appreciate Weiner’s position.

Also: “I mean they way he refuses to agree with anyone’s interpretations of the material (especially critics) tells you he only wants to see what he wants to see.”

This is a typical attitude of some creators concerning their work – and I think it’s understandable – given the amount of blood, sweat, and tears poured into the creation. Of course, in the end, the audience will create a consensus about the meaning of a work of art – that is their function in the process – and I’m sure Weiner is smart enough to realize that. But that doesn’t have to keep him from trying to steer that opinion a little bit if he can.

By: guest

04.02.2013 @ 9:14 PM

Never watched the Superbowl–always watch Mad Men

By: Brendan Noel

04.02.2013 @ 9:57 PM

“Interesting” discussion going on up there…anyway, I like The Mad Men.

By: madmeme

04.03.2013 @ 1:11 PM

“…which is why I’ve always felt that Weiner’s handwringing over spoilers does a disservice to his own creation.”

@Alan, I’m not clear about what kind of disservice you feel the anti-spoiler rules do to the show. Is it because it doesn’t allow critics to reveal items in reviews done before the show airs?

If that’s your meaning, then I would just point out that without Weiner’s rules – you would still be seeing the show unspoiled – but I (and other audience members) would not :)

And while I agree with your premise that big plot moments are less important than what is revealed by them, I feel Mad Men is still currently the best writing in television (by a wide margin) – and it gives me great pleasure to approach every episode without an inkling of when I am, where I am, and where I’m going.

By: Ricardo

04.03.2013 @ 3:25 PM

Why is Mad Men with a D+ rating for an episode that hasn’t even aired yet?

By: BDUB

04.03.2013 @ 3:55 PM

I had the same question. I saw the grade, read the blog and then saw 70 something comments. I skimmed every comment to see why it was given such a low rating. Instead I see a bunch of comments from a dude complaining about what Alan is watching. Anyway, if you find out let me know.

By: madmeme

04.03.2013 @ 10:22 PM

I mentioned above that I think some people are using the grade to reflect their displeasure that Mad Men gets so much positive attention, or that they think the show is overrated, or that they don’t personally like M. Weiner, etc. You know, childish things.

By: madmeme

04.03.2013 @ 10:24 PM

Or, most likely explanation: that Alan rated it higher than Game of Thrones.

By: BDUB

04.03.2013 @ 11:17 PM

Thanks. I think you’re on to something here. I forgot about the ire of GOT fans.

By: madmeme

04.04.2013 @ 12:45 AM

Speaking of these ratings, why is it that HitFix even allows ratings of unaired content by viewers? Or is that just an automatic attachment when the article is classified as a review?

By: Art Vandelay

04.04.2013 @ 2:48 PM

Probably the latter, but I agree it is silly to allow a “readers’ rating” when no reader/viewer could have seen the show to actually give it a rating. So instead you have trolls and various other ax-grinders propping up or downgrading shows based on nothing but preconceived notions. That’s one of the reasons I don’t bother with that rating and look only at Alan’s, and even more so the write-up.